Forums

THE WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!!!! Topic

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/25/2013 6:13:00 PM (view original):How are state symbols of religion prohibited by the Constitution? Establishment of religion is a lot different from embracing a religion; I firmly believe the original intent, at least, was to prevent religious persecution of any religious group. I'm not saying I agree with swamp on this, and I don't, but I think your interpretation of that amendment is far broader than the intent.

Hmmm, maybe they aren't. I guess I was thinking of the Ten Commandments displays in courthouses, etc that have been ruled unconstitutional. Do you have examples of the government embracing symbols of a specific religion (beyond things like "In God We Trust," which aren't specific to a religion)?

Posted by swamphawk22 on 2/25/2013 6:50:00 PM (view original):1 A state symbol of a religion is not the same as having a cross in a flag with other symbols. And if you dont do something for 200 years it sets a precedent.

2 So a High School kid has never been prevented from thanking god in a comencement speech?

3 Does that mean that gays can act gay in their own house but it can be illegal for them to act gay in public? Why is there a special standard to religious people?

1. Ok, what state symbols of religion have been banned?
2. Do you have a specific example?
3. You can act religious (or gay) in public all you want. Is anyone stopping you?

1 A great example is the ACLU threatened to sue the County of Los Angeles because they had a cross in their symbol, and the threat of the suit alone caused the County to remove the cross.

2 An example would be in 2011 a valedictorian, Kyle Gewar, was prohibited by his school from addressing how Jesus Christ changed his life in his commencement speech.

3 You have made the comment a few times that Christians can do whatever they want on private property. There would be an outrage if someone said "Gays can do what they want on their propertty. Why are gays supposed to hide their faith?

Posted by swamphawk22 on 2/26/2013 3:17:00 PM (view original):1 A great example is the ACLU threatened to sue the County of Los Angeles because they had a cross in their symbol, and the threat of the suit alone caused the County to remove the cross.

2 An example would be in 2011 a valedictorian, Kyle Gewar, was prohibited by his school from addressing how Jesus Christ changed his life in his commencement speech.

3 You have made the comment a few times that Christians can do whatever they want on private property. There would be an outrage if someone said "Gays can do what they want on their propertty. Why are gays supposed to hide their faith?

1. That seems like a government endorsement of a specific religion. Removing it was the right thing to do.
2. Have you read the unedited speech? They allowed him to thank god and his pastor and his youth group. They cut him short when it went from a commencement speech to a sermon. I think they should have let him go ahead and give the full speech.
3. Anyone can be religious in public. You just can't use public land to put up religious displays. See the difference?

The first stated duty of the Chaplain of the House of Representatives as a Minister of Outreach is as follows:

"To bring a dimension of faith to human events, giving praise and thanks to God for what God is doing in the world, in the nation, and in and through leaders and ordinary citizens"

While that is not a "endorsement," as you referred to the cross on the LA seal, of any specific religion, it certainly sounds like an endorsement of monotheism. The initial rule, established very early in the history of our current government, was that the House and Senate Chaplains had to be of "different denominations" - clearly implying that a Congress still largely led by men who drafted and signed the Constitution fully anticipated that they should have Congressional Chaplains and that they should be Christian. The use of "In God We Trust" on currency is also an overt endorsement of a monotheistic belief system.

Again, the intent of a Constitutional ban on establishment of religion was always to prevent religious persecution, not to prevent public displays of faith. I do agree that the government should not do anything with taxpayer money to support any particular religion or religious group (for sacred purposes, anyway; if you want to support religious organizations feeding the hungry out of church basements that's something we could discuss).

How exactly is that hostility towards Christians? I'm sorry that the constitution doesn't allow the government to endorse Christianity on the ******* county seal, but Christians are still free to practice their religion.

The non-Christians are the ones who want the changes. That makes them out to be the ones who are insecure, not the Christians. If it was the Christians then they would be demanding that everyone have a cross on their seals. You got it backwards!

Posted by bheid408 on 2/26/2013 9:01:00 PM (view original):The non-Christians are the ones who want the changes. That makes them out to be the ones who are insecure, not the Christians. If it was the Christians then they would be demanding that everyone have a cross on their seals. You got it backwards!

People who favor following the constitution want the changes. They'd feel the same way if it was a different religion's symbol on a government seal.

Years ago a group of people got together and decided they would like to have a cross on a government seal that probably acknowledges the history of their community just like swamp suggests. Years later a group of people seeing the cross, for whatever reason you want to use, want it removed. They are the ones that are insecure about it being there.

I'm not sure why any of them have their panties all in a bunch over some symbols. My best guess is they hate all religion and are grasping at straws to add some kind of legitimacy to their hatred, so they look to a constitution that was designed to keep government out of religion (not the other way around) and start complaining. It's really quite pathetic.